-
The main disjoint between the United States and itself, of course, is that of its traditional earliest settlers -- i.e., the 'Pilgrims,' 'Puritans' or Anabaptists -- and the other religious malcontents who followed suit in emigrating to the New World. In contrast to Spain, who enforced restrictions against 'heretics' settling in its colonies because they were intent on converting the natives to Catholicism, England saw it as a convenient way of getting the dissidents and deviants out of the way -- even if they weren't guaranteed to get along with each other. This made America, by default, the first truly heterodox territory-nation in the Western Hemisphere -- or at least since the diplomatic empire-building of Alexander the Great.
The Puritans wanted 'freedom of religion,' as everyone knows.....well, they wanted freedom of their religion against the corruptions of everyone else's, is more like it. The Anabaptists had already found the Netherlands too liberal and tolerant for their tastes, if that's any indication of enduring differences. Their colonies had a sizeable dominance over New England -- yet their denomination was never officially denoted as a 'state religion' -- only a 'city-state religion.' Rhode Island and Pennsylvania also gained charters of their own, but they were not Puritan colonies, and it is notable that the first instances of interdenominational strife in the colonies (though to those involved it might as well have been interreligious entirely) were those of the Puritans refusing to tolerate other sects/denominations in their vicinity -- harassing, assaulting, whipping, tarring & feathering those who did not follow the Puritan ways (which is why Rhode Island was founded in the first place, as a haven for 'heretics' and freethinkers being persecuted elsewhere in the greater region).
So, the first trend that one group of co-religionists started once free of the (real or imagined) pressures inhibiting the practice of their faith....was to start pressuring and inhibiting others from practising any other faith or manner of living. They acted as if they had been granted a charter not merely to settle but to subjugate -- and thus we have the birth of the Religious Right, before the nation itself had been founded.
But what is older is not always better, though it tends to have a strong hold on cultural attitudes -- as the fitful pace of civil rights legislation/saturation in this country has been demonstrating for generations. When it came to creating a framework for the new nation as a whole, the men who were most closely involved with the final product had a definite desire that no religion nor denomination should be enabled, whether through apppointment nor through negligence, to assert itself as the state religion over others. And they were close enough to the past to see what could happen in such an unregulated situation. They said what they thought was necessary, and no doubt thought that posterity might listen -- yet, on the grounds that they were all nominally Christian-or-some-variant-thereof-but-at-least-not-atheist, people have since claimed erroneously that "America Was Intended to Be a Christian Nation."
America was not intended to be a Christian nation. America was 'intended', if anything, as a way to get rid of disruptive domestic elements from England, France and other parts and make their toil productive for their overseas sovereigns. The first rallying cry of the American Revolution was "No taxation without representation" -- that is, everyone deserves a say in the way that things work. Originally that was restricted to white adult male landowners...then the property requirement was lifted...then race, then sex, though there's still the educational dilemma of whether a populace can be considered informed enough to vote unless they can read the dominant language. But it is well worth noting that the legal framework of the Constitution, despite any references to God/Creator/Maker in the seminal documentation of the nation, never restricted any rights according to religion. That, my friends, has all been the work of tradition, social prejudice and entrenched nativism, but was never meant to be a legal disbarrment. Hence, whatever their other social assumptions regarding race, class, education, sex, etc., one must conclude that the United States as a nation was intended to have religious equality and freedom for all -- not just some, not even just a majority of co-religionists or faiths of similar moral conservatism, but all.
That does not mean lack of freedom for religions (unless those religions commit crimes against others); it does not mean the banning of religions from all public expression, as under Communist regimes. Let's get it cleared up -- the only thing that is required of a religion in this country is that it not obstruct the rights and basic freedoms of others, and that is the basis for every advance of explicit civil rights (as not everything can be foreseen two centuries ahead) that elicits cries of "State persecution!" from traditionalist religious denominations today. They are not being oppressed. They are not even being repressed. (Now you see the non-violence inherent in the system)
As it was stated, so let it be guaranteed under law, with no equivocations and panderings to the "born-again" ministers of state and their voting blocs -- America must guarantee not only the freedom to worship, and the freedom to worship/commune as one feels is right, but the freedom not to worship, and the freedom not to live in fear and trepidation of being persecuted for not following the rules based solely on religion's pervasiveness in former days. Freedom not to worship rules made by and for other religions, and not to be punished for offending those sects' delicate sensibilities, whether by one's daily life and livelihood, by one's own spiritual practice, by one's visible relationships or by one's very existence as a visible person. If the laws do not allow for an encompassing view rather than one that caters to an established religion, they are not laws that can be fairly applied to all citizens. In short: state-enabled rule by excuse of religion is effectively the same thing as endorsing a state religion (albeit with slightly less in the way of purges and executions)....and that is against the law of this nation as it still fundamentally stands. Our Founding Fathers did not foresee nor have the power to root out all the blue laws and moral objections that would linger on for centuries as dead-hands on the practice of our freedoms...they are our weeds to uproot, as this nation is our garden to tend, regardless of religious faith or the lack thereof. But let us have faith in something that is not bound to either extreme of militancy.
I am glad that I have an education and the ability to think for myself -- some people are never allowed to get that far in viewing the world they live in. And then there are some who consider themselved educated by dint of higher schooling but apparently haven't learned much. Those many who now believe in American theocracy as a sacred mission have a pitifully poor sense of this nation's prenatal history as a free range for religious social tyranny and extremism. They don't remember history -- and I think you know the rest of the quote. Even in the present crisis, the best answer to one religious extremism is not another extremism, and it never was. It is only in the assertion and rediscovering of the "self-evident" truths of human equality, of dignity and responsible freedom, that the best of our nation and of human civilization can be preserved against those -- all those -- who truly do wish to destroy those truths in the name of their gods.
Things to Do: clean out the lawbooks, dust out the irrational social mores, and remember how far we've come -- and how much farther we need to grow if this nation's ever going to grow up for real.
[For further information on the "Blog Against Theocracy" project, see http://blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/]
"Aorta (fiery version)" - digital painting, copyright K. Aurencz Zethmayr
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Petition comments re federal hate crimes legislation
[For a truly impressive piece of thorough and verbose cultural-religious paranoia, check out the comments to this post...]
-
K. Aurencz Zethmayr has sent you an important action alert - read below for more info, and take action at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/126365544
-
K. Aurencz Zethmayr has sent you an important action alert - read below for more info, and take action at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/126365544
As you may or may not know, I have a few subscriptions to various 'action alerts' and petition topics -- and the latest one that I've weighed in on is this one supporting the addition of the Matthew Shepard Act to existing federal hate-crimes statutes. Here's what I said, and the link is below if you want to follow it and have your say:
'I believe that this is one of the most badly-needed pieces of civil rights legislation at this time in history, as a large number of criminal acts, both graphically notorious and generally unreported out of fear, are committed on the sole basis of hatred against those of different sexual orientations and genders. There is no excuse for that, regardless of the number of people who may share similar prejudices and thus seek to minimize or rationalize away such unwarranted and antisocial behaviours. Hate crimes are never justified, no matter who the aggressor is and who the victim is -- unfortunately, many people need this spelled out to them, both in the field of law enforcement and in the general population at large, and will continue to think that "queerbashing" is permissible because of their personal and/or religious views unless this category is specifically and prominently added to existing hate-crimes legislation.'
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/126365544
Thanks for the read, and pardon the inevitable crossposting -- feel free to pass this on if you like the way I phrased it, etc....
Aurey
------------------------------------
ThePetitionSite.com provides tools and empowers individuals to make a difference and effect positive change through online activism. Get connected with the causes you care about, take action to make the world a better place, and start your own petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/!
ThePetitionSite.com is powered by Care2.com, the largest online network for people who Care2 make a difference. With over 5 million members, we make it easy for you to live a healthy, sustainable lifestyle and protect the environment, human rights, education, women's rights, animal welfare, and much more... all in one place! Join our community at http://www.care2.com/
Friday, June 01, 2007
Children should not be raised on kiddie-tailored propaganda
=========================================================
Publisher aims to teach kids right from left
A Torrance executive says he sees too many children's books with liberal views. His titles aim to tilt the shelves the other way.
=========================================================
There's a radical concept that I'd like to put forward....
Instead of complaining about "liberal" bias and putting out rightwing children's books in the name of ideological balance/overbalance, why don't people focus on finding and conveying the truth, regardless of whose "agenda" it may seem to support? Afterall, especially when some of these books are being marketed as "nonfiction", shouldn't they actually be supported as 'not being fictions' set up just to argue a point of view?
If you're going to make a story for kids that's supposed to teach them about the real world and how it works (or doesn't), base it on something that has actually happened in reality, and in the same reality that you're setting it in. Don't take your lemonade-stand fable from a Communist milieu and call it typical American liberalism; maybe let your gay penguins have the non-happy ending and one dump the other for a wife (which is what actually happened). That's life -- if you're calling it realistic then stick to what's really there. Princes and fairytales are accepted as being of the realm of fantasy and metaphor, but don't sell contrived propaganda to 'impressionable young minds' and call it an honest perspective. You know what?--Heather really did have two mommies. And she's just as perfectly well-adjusted as (and possibly a lot moreso than) any kid raised in a standard mom-&-dad sex=gender dichotomous household. That's truth. It happens and has been happening for years now, it's real, it's as functional as anything. Same with little Buster Bunny's travels, 'cause that's really information too. Truth. Real people, real existences. You don't like it, then get out of the business of even pretending to have an objective viewpoint.
I feel very strongly about children's books and what they teach. I've read a wide range of literature aimed more-or-less didactically at kids, from Grimm's Fairytales to Tootles to The Chronicles of Narnia. You know, the first tome actually has more enduring worth in it than those more-modern examples, even with all the religious assumptions and violence and dubious magic and what-have-you. Those fairytales do less of the mental violence of being targeted at children to shape them as thoroughly as possible, and are far more psychologically realistic despite all their fantasy -- they're not even as sexist as C.S. Lewis comes across (ever read the Narnia books and gleaned his attitudes?).
In my opinion, kids deserve to have better than mere lessons and manipulations at every turn, and any author or publisher who sets out trying primarily to entrain them into an ideology -- regardless of the nominal agenda -- does not deserve to be in a position of reaching them via those words. At that age, I'd consider it child molestation -- just as I tend to consider formal religious instruction (as well as formal anti-religious instruction). Children deserve to be treated honestly and with respect, not just as future party members or mini-activists. If you can't manage that, I think censorship may be in order, and precisely where most people would never think to apply it.
(And just to be clear on my values, I also hated that "socialist" one with the beautiful fish giving away his shining rainbow scales just to be accepted by others. Bollocks. Self-betrayal is never a defensible virtue in my book.)
Publisher aims to teach kids right from left
A Torrance executive says he sees too many children's books with liberal views. His titles aim to tilt the shelves the other way.
=========================================================
There's a radical concept that I'd like to put forward....
Instead of complaining about "liberal" bias and putting out rightwing children's books in the name of ideological balance/overbalance, why don't people focus on finding and conveying the truth, regardless of whose "agenda" it may seem to support? Afterall, especially when some of these books are being marketed as "nonfiction", shouldn't they actually be supported as 'not being fictions' set up just to argue a point of view?
If you're going to make a story for kids that's supposed to teach them about the real world and how it works (or doesn't), base it on something that has actually happened in reality, and in the same reality that you're setting it in. Don't take your lemonade-stand fable from a Communist milieu and call it typical American liberalism; maybe let your gay penguins have the non-happy ending and one dump the other for a wife (which is what actually happened). That's life -- if you're calling it realistic then stick to what's really there. Princes and fairytales are accepted as being of the realm of fantasy and metaphor, but don't sell contrived propaganda to 'impressionable young minds' and call it an honest perspective. You know what?--Heather really did have two mommies. And she's just as perfectly well-adjusted as (and possibly a lot moreso than) any kid raised in a standard mom-&-dad sex=gender dichotomous household. That's truth. It happens and has been happening for years now, it's real, it's as functional as anything. Same with little Buster Bunny's travels, 'cause that's really information too. Truth. Real people, real existences. You don't like it, then get out of the business of even pretending to have an objective viewpoint.
I feel very strongly about children's books and what they teach. I've read a wide range of literature aimed more-or-less didactically at kids, from Grimm's Fairytales to Tootles to The Chronicles of Narnia. You know, the first tome actually has more enduring worth in it than those more-modern examples, even with all the religious assumptions and violence and dubious magic and what-have-you. Those fairytales do less of the mental violence of being targeted at children to shape them as thoroughly as possible, and are far more psychologically realistic despite all their fantasy -- they're not even as sexist as C.S. Lewis comes across (ever read the Narnia books and gleaned his attitudes?).
In my opinion, kids deserve to have better than mere lessons and manipulations at every turn, and any author or publisher who sets out trying primarily to entrain them into an ideology -- regardless of the nominal agenda -- does not deserve to be in a position of reaching them via those words. At that age, I'd consider it child molestation -- just as I tend to consider formal religious instruction (as well as formal anti-religious instruction). Children deserve to be treated honestly and with respect, not just as future party members or mini-activists. If you can't manage that, I think censorship may be in order, and precisely where most people would never think to apply it.
(And just to be clear on my values, I also hated that "socialist" one with the beautiful fish giving away his shining rainbow scales just to be accepted by others. Bollocks. Self-betrayal is never a defensible virtue in my book.)
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Another one leaves the temporal fray; the words go on.....
==============================================
KURT VONNEGUT: 1922-2007
His popular novels blended social criticism, dark humor (Los Angeles Times)
Novelist Kurt Vonnegut dies at age 84 (AP release, via Yahoo News)
==============================================
If you've been reading this poor underfed blog through its sketchy history so far, you'll notice that I was similarly distraught (is that too strong a word?--no, not really) at news of Hunter S. Thompson's death ("The best minds of our generations...")....and that certainly applies now as well, even though Vonnegut didn't take his own life -- the pressures, and the general insanity in modern American life, were certainly felt the same, though expressed somewhat differently, and in a way this is a general continuation of the same mourning, the same memorializing.
I met Kurt Vonnegut earlier, though as with many authors and artists I was not quick to jump on the bandwagon of becoming a full-fledged devotee -- as a matter of fact, due to my general wariness of fads and fashions, it took me a while to make the connection between the 'popular' and absurdistly sci-fi author whose books my other siblings collected and the almost-classically serious author who'd struck my mind with a brief and bluntly-tragic tale that came across as disturbingly real and completely un-'comical' to me when I was still in my single-digit years. "Harrison Bergeron" was one of the first short stories I read as a child that really made an impact on me -- in seeing how the world can treat those that it fears, how the tallest stalks are (more or less ruthlessly) cut down to enable the 'emotional security' of a general mediocrity, the blandness of a society without peaks and storms or genius or even the sometimes-tyranny of natural strength and beauty. Every tall stalk on the mental/creative order recognizes this story when they see it...I'm not sure about the rest.
Here's what I said in my hyperlucidity group, insofar as loss and meaning:
"The memorials of great and notable individuals remind us what we're missing now, and highlight the themes that may have been let pass by too many for too long, so that they can be remembered and seen and even heeded again. I remember that Mr. Rogers' death was reported on an "orange-alert" day, during the 'Terror' of the post-9/11 push into war...we lose people when we need them most, when the world needs to be exposed to more, not less of them, not to have no more of their voices atall. And not for them to be passed over in the public eye for those who have/had nothing to say, nothing to make their lives worthwhile in the greater scheme of things -- not even the attempt to bring something of meaning -- or even the meaningful denial of "meaning" as commonly and comfortably assumed -- into the reality we share. Damn mere 'celebrity' -- especially the type that's crassly built on denying and deriding anything more than its own shallowly-gilded edifice or slick contemporary trend...this is what really matters."
Yes, I'm tired of Anna Nicole Smith....and Donald Trump, and all the other people whose significance is bound to their wealth, their bodies, their lovers and spouses, their power while they live and nothing more. I have many and various reasons for being disgusted with that, as my role models and affinities have always been those who've done more and/or otherwise than merely conquer or rule, or look good to the camera, or share beds and obscenely-large fortunes. They may retain fame after death, but they do no good to anyone but themselves and their coterie (and tabloid reporters). I believe there's a poem by Sappho on that subject....in this translation I found, it's titled "To an Uneducated Woman":
When dead you will lie forever forgotten,
for you have no claim to the Pierian roses.
Dim here, you will move more dimly in Hell,
flitting among the undistiguished dead.
--Sappho, fragment 55 V
--though, these phrases are the ones I remember better, from the first translation of it that I saw in college and still have somewhere stashed in my bedroom -- "Rich as you are, death will be the end of you. [...] You had no share in the Pierian roses. [...]"
Et cetera. I think the gist is fairly clear. We don't need more models or millionaires -- or even another "people's princess" to pull at a nation's/world's voyeurism and heartstrings alike. But we do need more people who can show the rest something more, especially in the concerns of their own consciousness and humanity, and prod them inside to claim their own possibilities and not be led like sheep.
And more people who understand what "Pierian roses" really means.
KURT VONNEGUT: 1922-2007
His popular novels blended social criticism, dark humor (Los Angeles Times)
Novelist Kurt Vonnegut dies at age 84 (AP release, via Yahoo News)
==============================================
If you've been reading this poor underfed blog through its sketchy history so far, you'll notice that I was similarly distraught (is that too strong a word?--no, not really) at news of Hunter S. Thompson's death ("The best minds of our generations...")....and that certainly applies now as well, even though Vonnegut didn't take his own life -- the pressures, and the general insanity in modern American life, were certainly felt the same, though expressed somewhat differently, and in a way this is a general continuation of the same mourning, the same memorializing.
I met Kurt Vonnegut earlier, though as with many authors and artists I was not quick to jump on the bandwagon of becoming a full-fledged devotee -- as a matter of fact, due to my general wariness of fads and fashions, it took me a while to make the connection between the 'popular' and absurdistly sci-fi author whose books my other siblings collected and the almost-classically serious author who'd struck my mind with a brief and bluntly-tragic tale that came across as disturbingly real and completely un-'comical' to me when I was still in my single-digit years. "Harrison Bergeron" was one of the first short stories I read as a child that really made an impact on me -- in seeing how the world can treat those that it fears, how the tallest stalks are (more or less ruthlessly) cut down to enable the 'emotional security' of a general mediocrity, the blandness of a society without peaks and storms or genius or even the sometimes-tyranny of natural strength and beauty. Every tall stalk on the mental/creative order recognizes this story when they see it...I'm not sure about the rest.
Here's what I said in my hyperlucidity group, insofar as loss and meaning:
"The memorials of great and notable individuals remind us what we're missing now, and highlight the themes that may have been let pass by too many for too long, so that they can be remembered and seen and even heeded again. I remember that Mr. Rogers' death was reported on an "orange-alert" day, during the 'Terror' of the post-9/11 push into war...we lose people when we need them most, when the world needs to be exposed to more, not less of them, not to have no more of their voices atall. And not for them to be passed over in the public eye for those who have/had nothing to say, nothing to make their lives worthwhile in the greater scheme of things -- not even the attempt to bring something of meaning -- or even the meaningful denial of "meaning" as commonly and comfortably assumed -- into the reality we share. Damn mere 'celebrity' -- especially the type that's crassly built on denying and deriding anything more than its own shallowly-gilded edifice or slick contemporary trend...this is what really matters."
Yes, I'm tired of Anna Nicole Smith....and Donald Trump, and all the other people whose significance is bound to their wealth, their bodies, their lovers and spouses, their power while they live and nothing more. I have many and various reasons for being disgusted with that, as my role models and affinities have always been those who've done more and/or otherwise than merely conquer or rule, or look good to the camera, or share beds and obscenely-large fortunes. They may retain fame after death, but they do no good to anyone but themselves and their coterie (and tabloid reporters). I believe there's a poem by Sappho on that subject....in this translation I found, it's titled "To an Uneducated Woman":
When dead you will lie forever forgotten,
for you have no claim to the Pierian roses.
Dim here, you will move more dimly in Hell,
flitting among the undistiguished dead.
--Sappho, fragment 55 V
--though, these phrases are the ones I remember better, from the first translation of it that I saw in college and still have somewhere stashed in my bedroom -- "Rich as you are, death will be the end of you. [...] You had no share in the Pierian roses. [...]"
Et cetera. I think the gist is fairly clear. We don't need more models or millionaires -- or even another "people's princess" to pull at a nation's/world's voyeurism and heartstrings alike. But we do need more people who can show the rest something more, especially in the concerns of their own consciousness and humanity, and prod them inside to claim their own possibilities and not be led like sheep.
And more people who understand what "Pierian roses" really means.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Fairness Doctrine and no hate speech?--how anti-Christian!! [AFA fwd]
Friends, this is a very important crisis facing our rightfully-theocratic culture that was ordained by GOD to be a leader and ruler to all nations....if you don't stand up now and show your support for a strictly-fundamentalist and Christian Christianity as our official moral structure, naked blazing-eyed and foaming-mouthed rabid demons of unspeakable perversion will automatically enter in to take the place of our Dear Lord and Saviour.
There can be no compromise with the forces of secular humanism, no middle ground, no common values with those who are determined to turn our beloved America into a perpetual orgy of unbridled indecency, heresy, pluralistic social mandates and carnal instincts. There are those who would condemn us as "narrow-minded" for exercising our duty to speak out against fornicators, somdomites and baby-killing harlots, but we will not be deprived of our right and obligation to judge the nation and all within it by our standards, and force them with love to the one true and delightsome narrow path of righteousness.....
(Are you wanting to strangle me yet? I'm sure that some of you who know me are likely finding the ironing delicious, even though the message of outraged judgementalism reeks of both bile and gall (yes, I know they're synonyms). Oh, and choler as well. :P
At any rate, do take this piece of hijacked fundy-mail below to heart, and VOTE in November. Remember, they're full of passionate intensity -- even if they're bass-ackwards perverted in their haids -- and a bunch of determined fanatics will always prevail against rational souls who do nothing. So do something to try and fix that, 'kay?)
====================================================
AFA ActionAlert <contact@mail2.afamail.net> wrote:
From: "AFA ActionAlert" <contact@mail2.afamail.net>
To: K. Aurencz Zethmayr <aureantyev@yahoo.com>
Subject: What if the Liberals Win in November?
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:59:00 -0500
Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman
October 11, 2006
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
What if the Liberals Win in November?
Dear K.,
How important are the upcoming elections? Extremely important! Below is a list of what we can expect if the liberals win. These elections are crucial. It is vitally important that you vote. Please vote and encourage others to do the same. As bad as things are, they will be infinitely worse if the liberals win. The strategy of the liberals is to get Values Voters so disgusted and discouraged that they will not vote. If that happens, the liberals will have achieved their goal and they will be running our country. Here is what we can expect if the liberals win:
* Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.
* A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.
* Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.
* Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.
* Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.
* A return to the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows.
* An increase in taxes to push new social programs.
* Passing a new "hate crimes" law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.
* Liberals will give terrorists from other countries who try to kill Americans the same rights American citizens enjoy under our constitution.
* We will withdraw from Iraq, sending the message to the terrorists that if they will just be patient they can win and bring their terrorist acts to the U.S.
Go Vote! Encourage Others To Do The Same.Sign up to stayed informed! Visit the American Family Association at http://www.afa.net/ today!
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
Okay....so, is this so hard to understand, or just to prioritize properly? (I know, I know, you can't expect people to have human consciences anymore, not when national security's at stake...)
If you say that you have a right to treat your enemy captives without Geneva Convention regulations as guideline, then what reason do your enemies have to use any restraint whatsoever when they capture any of your guys? These things were established for a reason of mutual self-protection, not just some imagined namby-pambyism of "being nice to the prisoners"....and honestly, unless you've either been through a POW/torture situation yourself or read/seen and felt a damn visceral lot of the subject, you're not entitled to make decisions that may wind up putting your troops in that kind of unbridled jeopardy. Especially when you're dealing with people who behead journalists and and stone homosexuals....oh wait, that's one ideal ya got in common there, isn't it...?
Commander-in-chief, my ass...the man and the minions/handlers about him have no sense of valuing the lives of their fellow Americans, if they think that selectively ignoring treatment standards is going to make anyone inside or fighting for this country any safer....
There can be no compromise with the forces of secular humanism, no middle ground, no common values with those who are determined to turn our beloved America into a perpetual orgy of unbridled indecency, heresy, pluralistic social mandates and carnal instincts. There are those who would condemn us as "narrow-minded" for exercising our duty to speak out against fornicators, somdomites and baby-killing harlots, but we will not be deprived of our right and obligation to judge the nation and all within it by our standards, and force them with love to the one true and delightsome narrow path of righteousness.....
(Are you wanting to strangle me yet? I'm sure that some of you who know me are likely finding the ironing delicious, even though the message of outraged judgementalism reeks of both bile and gall (yes, I know they're synonyms). Oh, and choler as well. :P
At any rate, do take this piece of hijacked fundy-mail below to heart, and VOTE in November. Remember, they're full of passionate intensity -- even if they're bass-ackwards perverted in their haids -- and a bunch of determined fanatics will always prevail against rational souls who do nothing. So do something to try and fix that, 'kay?)
====================================================
AFA ActionAlert <contact@mail2.afamail.net> wrote:
From: "AFA ActionAlert" <contact@mail2.afamail.net>
To: K. Aurencz Zethmayr <aureantyev@yahoo.com>
Subject: What if the Liberals Win in November?
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:59:00 -0500
Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman
October 11, 2006
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
What if the Liberals Win in November?
Dear K.,
How important are the upcoming elections? Extremely important! Below is a list of what we can expect if the liberals win. These elections are crucial. It is vitally important that you vote. Please vote and encourage others to do the same. As bad as things are, they will be infinitely worse if the liberals win. The strategy of the liberals is to get Values Voters so disgusted and discouraged that they will not vote. If that happens, the liberals will have achieved their goal and they will be running our country. Here is what we can expect if the liberals win:
* Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.
* A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.
* Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.
* Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.
* Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.
* A return to the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows.
* An increase in taxes to push new social programs.
* Passing a new "hate crimes" law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.
* Liberals will give terrorists from other countries who try to kill Americans the same rights American citizens enjoy under our constitution.
* We will withdraw from Iraq, sending the message to the terrorists that if they will just be patient they can win and bring their terrorist acts to the U.S.
Go Vote! Encourage Others To Do The Same.Sign up to stayed informed! Visit the American Family Association at http://www.afa.net/ today!
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
 |
|
|
You are receiving this mailing because you participated in an AFA-sponsored poll, petition, or action alert. In keeping with our privacy policy, AFA may periodically contact you regarding issues of concern to the family. Rest assured that your subscription e-mail address will be kept in the strictest confidence. We do not divulge, nor make available to any third party, our subscription list. Your privacy is paramount to us! |
American Family Association P O Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 1-662-844-5036 |
|
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Regarding the joint Madonna/Veggie Tales furor...
[expanded slightly from my comment at http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/09/madonna-crucified-veggie-tales-maimed.html The immediately-following is most of the text from the American Family Association's email alert regarding the editing of Veggie Tales.....check for bias and assumptions, of course, as it is rather full of those:
NBC: Bible Verses In Veggie Tales Offensive, But Not Madonna's Mockery Of The Crucifixion Of Christ
Dear K.,
NBC anti-Christian bigotry continues. This time NBC censored Bible verses and expressions of Christian love from the children's cartoon Veggie Tales being shown Saturday mornings on NBC.
NBC says comments such as "God made you special and He loves you very much" were offensive and censored them from the show.
In response to the outrage over the allegations that NBC was ordering the removal of any references to God and the Bible from the animated series, the network first issued a flat denial. As reported in Broadcasting & Cable, NBC said they had to "clip off the beginning and ending tags, which are Bible verses, but they were also arguably the easiest cut to make."
The creator of Veggie Tales, Phil Vischer, said NBC's excuse for censoring the Bible verses was not true. Vischer said, "Well, that's kinda funny, because as the guy required to do all the editing, I know that statement is false...The show wasn't too long, it was too Christian. The show was already cut down to the proper length, so timing had nothing to do with it."
NBC then backpeddled: "NBC is committed to the positive messages and universal values of Veggie Tales. Our goal is to reach as broad an audience as possible with these positive messages while being careful not to advocate any one religious point of view." Evidently NBC considers not being truthful as one of their "universal values."
Vischer said had he known how much censorship NBC would exercise, he would not have signed on for the network deal.
Censored were comments such as: "Calm down. The Bible says we should love our enemies." And "the Bible says Samson got his strength from God. And God can give us strength, too."
NBC says using Bible verses or referring to God is offensive to some non-Christians. But NBC doesn't hesitate to offend Christians by showing Madonna mocking the crucifixion of Christ. Neither do not mind offending Christians in their new program Studio 60 with a segment called Crazy Christians. (Please read the review.)
This will seem a strong statement, and it is: The real reason the religious content is being censored is that the networks are run by people who have an anti-Christian bias. I noticed this anti-Christian bigotry and spoke out against it over 25 years ago. I'm sorry if someone thinks that is too harsh, but I must speak the truth as God leads me to see the truth. [....] ]
Personally, I'm inclined to see this rather clearly as NBC's trying to reach the most people in a general way, without promoting either any particular religion or cluster of religions (i.e., those which would quote the Old Testament incessantly to substantiate even the most universal of moral and ethical values). Saved, unsaved, it's all hot air and torch-brandishing -- how people treat each other is more important than in whose name or with whose words they happen to do it.
With Veggie Tales, I can surmise that NBC's editors were trying to reach a broader audience for the positive material itself, regardless of the faith or lack thereof of potential viewers -- with Madonna, even though I personally tend to think she's a pretentious flake, the valid conflict going on here is whether NBC should allow her to be shown making a humanitarian point while utilizing a religiously-vested tableau. The concept of crucifixion of the innocent, though, is larger than the Christian mythos/dogma from which it arose, and so more people are likely to see the symbolic level of what is being meant than are likely to take it as being an attack on Christianity. Honestly, the most it could technically be is a misappropriation, and that presupposes that Christianity's events can be said to "belong" to a particular group instead of being, as Pope Benedict commented, an essential part of European heritage -- and therefore its mental/emotional language as well. It's already there and it's not going out of our heads as a meaningful scene, therefore it has a psychological currency that is not limited to those who take it literally.
The lovely Litharriel comments via IM, btw, that the AFA and its ilk can have their Veggie Tales pristinely uncut once they stop trying to dictate the terms of other people's artistic expression. They can't have their cake and eat it too, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (End of proverbial insert)
All in all, I think NBC is doing a commendable job so far of trying to keep the peace and not try to impose anything religiously-partisan upon its viewers. That doesn't mean expunging material, but making sure that that material is not a dictation of formal religious beliefs to those who may not share them.
NBC: Bible Verses In Veggie Tales Offensive, But Not Madonna's Mockery Of The Crucifixion Of Christ
Dear K.,
NBC anti-Christian bigotry continues. This time NBC censored Bible verses and expressions of Christian love from the children's cartoon Veggie Tales being shown Saturday mornings on NBC.
NBC says comments such as "God made you special and He loves you very much" were offensive and censored them from the show.
In response to the outrage over the allegations that NBC was ordering the removal of any references to God and the Bible from the animated series, the network first issued a flat denial. As reported in Broadcasting & Cable, NBC said they had to "clip off the beginning and ending tags, which are Bible verses, but they were also arguably the easiest cut to make."
The creator of Veggie Tales, Phil Vischer, said NBC's excuse for censoring the Bible verses was not true. Vischer said, "Well, that's kinda funny, because as the guy required to do all the editing, I know that statement is false...The show wasn't too long, it was too Christian. The show was already cut down to the proper length, so timing had nothing to do with it."
NBC then backpeddled: "NBC is committed to the positive messages and universal values of Veggie Tales. Our goal is to reach as broad an audience as possible with these positive messages while being careful not to advocate any one religious point of view." Evidently NBC considers not being truthful as one of their "universal values."
Vischer said had he known how much censorship NBC would exercise, he would not have signed on for the network deal.
Censored were comments such as: "Calm down. The Bible says we should love our enemies." And "the Bible says Samson got his strength from God. And God can give us strength, too."
NBC says using Bible verses or referring to God is offensive to some non-Christians. But NBC doesn't hesitate to offend Christians by showing Madonna mocking the crucifixion of Christ. Neither do not mind offending Christians in their new program Studio 60 with a segment called Crazy Christians. (Please read the review.)
This will seem a strong statement, and it is: The real reason the religious content is being censored is that the networks are run by people who have an anti-Christian bias. I noticed this anti-Christian bigotry and spoke out against it over 25 years ago. I'm sorry if someone thinks that is too harsh, but I must speak the truth as God leads me to see the truth. [....] ]
Personally, I'm inclined to see this rather clearly as NBC's trying to reach the most people in a general way, without promoting either any particular religion or cluster of religions (i.e., those which would quote the Old Testament incessantly to substantiate even the most universal of moral and ethical values). Saved, unsaved, it's all hot air and torch-brandishing -- how people treat each other is more important than in whose name or with whose words they happen to do it.
With Veggie Tales, I can surmise that NBC's editors were trying to reach a broader audience for the positive material itself, regardless of the faith or lack thereof of potential viewers -- with Madonna, even though I personally tend to think she's a pretentious flake, the valid conflict going on here is whether NBC should allow her to be shown making a humanitarian point while utilizing a religiously-vested tableau. The concept of crucifixion of the innocent, though, is larger than the Christian mythos/dogma from which it arose, and so more people are likely to see the symbolic level of what is being meant than are likely to take it as being an attack on Christianity. Honestly, the most it could technically be is a misappropriation, and that presupposes that Christianity's events can be said to "belong" to a particular group instead of being, as Pope Benedict commented, an essential part of European heritage -- and therefore its mental/emotional language as well. It's already there and it's not going out of our heads as a meaningful scene, therefore it has a psychological currency that is not limited to those who take it literally.
The lovely Litharriel comments via IM, btw, that the AFA and its ilk can have their Veggie Tales pristinely uncut once they stop trying to dictate the terms of other people's artistic expression. They can't have their cake and eat it too, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (End of proverbial insert)
All in all, I think NBC is doing a commendable job so far of trying to keep the peace and not try to impose anything religiously-partisan upon its viewers. That doesn't mean expunging material, but making sure that that material is not a dictation of formal religious beliefs to those who may not share them.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Attention, religioholics (and those oppressed by them)--we're working on a cure....
Which means another of my notorious online groups...>:) Religioholics Anonymous is opening its doors, to provide those addicted to the mindless worship of their faith with enlightenment as to the nature of reality:
No faith (or anti-faith) has a monopoly on fanaticism and atrocities and crimes against humanity; no faith is immune from the consequences of thinking itself above all others and justified in forcing its ways on all.
Here's what we got..........
Religioholics
[From the Latin religio, to bind together, + common suffix -holic, cf. alcoholic, addicted to alcohol--hence, those who are addicted to the pursuit of binding everyone together by hook or by crook, by force, deceit or constant mental/emotional pressure, in the belief that their own religion or philosophy is the sole absolute truth and thus ought to be made universal and enforced as such. A common mental disease, manifested in both violent and covertly manipulative forms. See also chronic proselytizers, zealots, fundamentalists, fanatics, and orthodoxy(esp. as opp. to heterodoxy)]
Recovery from religioholism is a long and often harrowing process of detachment from trying to dictate other people's lives and personal practise. The most severe cases, to be honest, either never recover atall or at most switch their allegiance to another absolutist structure of faith, whether theistic or atheistic, that must support them by claiming to be all-encompassing and infallible. Such people are never content with their own beliefs and values as lived by themselves, but demand that their whole families, communities, nations and even the whole world must follow the same way under penalty of censure, punishment, death and/or damnation.
O people of stiff necks and rigid doctrines, know that thine ancestral enemy thinks and acts and commits against others by even the same methods as thou...and therefore I ask thee, how art thou so very special in thy faith?
Let's explore a bit, shall we?
This is going to be rather like 'stupid human tricks'....posting news and discussion of the ideological idiocy that people descend to once they think their creed in superior to everyone else's and ought to be in control. It's tragic. It's age-old and ongoing. But day by day, mind by mind and soul by soul, we can work together for a cure.
-
No faith (or anti-faith) has a monopoly on fanaticism and atrocities and crimes against humanity; no faith is immune from the consequences of thinking itself above all others and justified in forcing its ways on all.
Here's what we got..........
Religioholics
[From the Latin religio, to bind together, + common suffix -holic, cf. alcoholic, addicted to alcohol--hence, those who are addicted to the pursuit of binding everyone together by hook or by crook, by force, deceit or constant mental/emotional pressure, in the belief that their own religion or philosophy is the sole absolute truth and thus ought to be made universal and enforced as such. A common mental disease, manifested in both violent and covertly manipulative forms. See also chronic proselytizers, zealots, fundamentalists, fanatics, and orthodoxy(esp. as opp. to heterodoxy)]
Recovery from religioholism is a long and often harrowing process of detachment from trying to dictate other people's lives and personal practise. The most severe cases, to be honest, either never recover atall or at most switch their allegiance to another absolutist structure of faith, whether theistic or atheistic, that must support them by claiming to be all-encompassing and infallible. Such people are never content with their own beliefs and values as lived by themselves, but demand that their whole families, communities, nations and even the whole world must follow the same way under penalty of censure, punishment, death and/or damnation.
O people of stiff necks and rigid doctrines, know that thine ancestral enemy thinks and acts and commits against others by even the same methods as thou...and therefore I ask thee, how art thou so very special in thy faith?
Let's explore a bit, shall we?
This is going to be rather like 'stupid human tricks'....posting news and discussion of the ideological idiocy that people descend to once they think their creed in superior to everyone else's and ought to be in control. It's tragic. It's age-old and ongoing. But day by day, mind by mind and soul by soul, we can work together for a cure.
-
Yep, I made me up a new word.......
Credocide --
[lit., "belief-killing", from the Latin credo, lit., I believe (root of the now-general religious term "creed") + -cide < caedere, to cut down, kill.]
The acute act or ongoing process of eliminating unfavoured/deviant beliefs/attitudes (and the persons who practice them without actual harm/insult to others) through persecution, violence, murder, expulsion, specialized discriminatory legislation, censorship, brainwashing/'re-education' or any other means other than that of rational and open civil discourse. Engaged in historically by most major religions (whether they'll officially admit it or not) and by all movements typically characterized as cults or totalitarianisms. The predominant unwritten and unprosecuted crime against the human intellect and spirit, committed or attempted by many without knowledge of what they do or why, driven only by that primal urge to remake the world of others in one's own image, regardless of whether or not it happens to be in their own best interests.
Very similar to genocide, but a helluva lot harder to prove in existing courts of law......
Some prime conspicuous examples: the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and the Spanish Inquisition, the conquests and forced conversions of the Americas, the Third Reich and the Holocaust, Stalinist purges and the gulags, China's Cultural Revolution, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Scientology, the Bush II administration.....feel free to add on your own example or elaboration of intolerant absolutist philosophy/religion that will admit no honest challenge.
[lit., "belief-killing", from the Latin credo, lit., I believe (root of the now-general religious term "creed") + -cide < caedere, to cut down, kill.]
The acute act or ongoing process of eliminating unfavoured/deviant beliefs/attitudes (and the persons who practice them without actual harm/insult to others) through persecution, violence, murder, expulsion, specialized discriminatory legislation, censorship, brainwashing/'re-education' or any other means other than that of rational and open civil discourse. Engaged in historically by most major religions (whether they'll officially admit it or not) and by all movements typically characterized as cults or totalitarianisms. The predominant unwritten and unprosecuted crime against the human intellect and spirit, committed or attempted by many without knowledge of what they do or why, driven only by that primal urge to remake the world of others in one's own image, regardless of whether or not it happens to be in their own best interests.
Very similar to genocide, but a helluva lot harder to prove in existing courts of law......
Some prime conspicuous examples: the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and the Spanish Inquisition, the conquests and forced conversions of the Americas, the Third Reich and the Holocaust, Stalinist purges and the gulags, China's Cultural Revolution, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Scientology, the Bush II administration.....feel free to add on your own example or elaboration of intolerant absolutist philosophy/religion that will admit no honest challenge.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Posts re the latest religious firestorm, again....
[Collected posts I've made in my newsgroup hyperlucidity over this situation]
==================================================
Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:16 pm
Actually, the central idea of this is the first and only intelligent/enlightened thing he's said since I've heard of him --and now people are getting upset, when it wasn't about rolling back the right to abortions, or repealing same-sex marriage in Canada, but the central fallacy of all absolute religions? Of course, he doesn't quite get that what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- but shouldn't that be the place to start the criticism on any humanistic grounds, not with the incident of it being taken as an insult against one religion that actually does have people doing stupidly theofanatical things in the present day?
Here's the Fox fulltext -- and the AP story below that's the one found on Yahoo News from yesterday. The Fox story paraphrased but did not quote directly what he said (not quite fair and balanced), and the upshot of what he said happens to be the one thing that all religions should be taking into account. Perhaps they omitted it because it strikes a potential blow at the feet of American forcible theocracy?
--Aurey
P.S.--I suspect that some Orthodox and other Eastern Christians will be rather put out over both the pat citing of the text as "obscure[and] medieval" and of the assumption of the Pope as being "the highest cleric in Christianity." Sounds like a whole lot of people are stuck in the Middle Ages.......and just rarin' for another go at the whole Crusade/jihad exercise at overgeneralization and prejudice. Doesn't anyone study the history of religions anymore?
(Religious Leaders Across Mideast Rage Against Pope's Comments on Islam)
(Muslim leaders condemn Pope's speech, want apology)
_______________________________
Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:35 am
I'm not saying he's any less bad than they are either -- but whether he meant it or not, what he said himself (i.e., not just quoting Palaeologos, who was a medieval Byzantine) ought to be given weight...again, whether he likes the full import of it or not. That's what he ought to be challenged on, though -- the Catholic Church's own record of spreading the faith by the sword, and the necessity of all faiths (and philosophies) forever recanting and refusing that method of literal "ideological warfare". It's what we need, no matter who happens to say it .I don't downplay how bad Stalin and Hitler were either, but they said a lot of insightful things about what they were doing and how they read the hearts and minds of people to do it. I'd rather understand and respond to their words logically than censure (or censor) them. Not to mention that I have no fondness for catering to the thin-skinnedness of any religion, no matter how militant.
Aurey
______________________________
[This is where I posted the post closely previous to this one, with bulleted observations]
_____________________________
Date: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:51 am
Okay, here's some context for the actual attitude that was being taken here through the speech, and the entire transcript (located under the American spelling of the title) can be read here:http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748 ....So, that's what he was trying to say--that he thinks the field of reason should and must re-embrace theology as a natural study, rather than relegating it to the realm of the utterly subjective.
Which is not too far from my own views, but then I still would have to resist the trend (which I can't imagine him not supporting) to consider religion to be mandated by (supposed) logical proof, as it seems his direction must inevitably be if he is opposed to the 'subjective' diversity of beliefs and practices. Because A, it might or might not be actually "true" as allegedly proven (choose your premises carefully), and B, even if something is true, if it harms no one to believe/practise otherwise or in a different version at the surface, then why press the issue? It is far more important for people to interact decently as fellow humans than to agree on the same exact creed, and I think a good deal more attention in the philosophical vein, since it's been brought up, ought to be re-addressed to the subject of ethics and responsible social interaction with others as equal beings.
--Aurey
==================================================
Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:16 pm
Actually, the central idea of this is the first and only intelligent/enlightened thing he's said since I've heard of him --and now people are getting upset, when it wasn't about rolling back the right to abortions, or repealing same-sex marriage in Canada, but the central fallacy of all absolute religions? Of course, he doesn't quite get that what's good for the goose is good for the gander -- but shouldn't that be the place to start the criticism on any humanistic grounds, not with the incident of it being taken as an insult against one religion that actually does have people doing stupidly theofanatical things in the present day?
Here's the Fox fulltext -- and the AP story below that's the one found on Yahoo News from yesterday. The Fox story paraphrased but did not quote directly what he said (not quite fair and balanced), and the upshot of what he said happens to be the one thing that all religions should be taking into account. Perhaps they omitted it because it strikes a potential blow at the feet of American forcible theocracy?
--Aurey
P.S.--I suspect that some Orthodox and other Eastern Christians will be rather put out over both the pat citing of the text as "obscure[and] medieval" and of the assumption of the Pope as being "the highest cleric in Christianity." Sounds like a whole lot of people are stuck in the Middle Ages.......and just rarin' for another go at the whole Crusade/jihad exercise at overgeneralization and prejudice. Doesn't anyone study the history of religions anymore?
(Religious Leaders Across Mideast Rage Against Pope's Comments on Islam)
(Muslim leaders condemn Pope's speech, want apology)
_______________________________
Date: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:35 am
I'm not saying he's any less bad than they are either -- but whether he meant it or not, what he said himself (i.e., not just quoting Palaeologos, who was a medieval Byzantine) ought to be given weight...again, whether he likes the full import of it or not. That's what he ought to be challenged on, though -- the Catholic Church's own record of spreading the faith by the sword, and the necessity of all faiths (and philosophies) forever recanting and refusing that method of literal "ideological warfare". It's what we need, no matter who happens to say it .I don't downplay how bad Stalin and Hitler were either, but they said a lot of insightful things about what they were doing and how they read the hearts and minds of people to do it. I'd rather understand and respond to their words logically than censure (or censor) them. Not to mention that I have no fondness for catering to the thin-skinnedness of any religion, no matter how militant.
Aurey
______________________________
[This is where I posted the post closely previous to this one, with bulleted observations]
_____________________________
Date: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:51 am
Okay, here's some context for the actual attitude that was being taken here through the speech, and the entire transcript (located under the American spelling of the title) can be read here:http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748 ....So, that's what he was trying to say--that he thinks the field of reason should and must re-embrace theology as a natural study, rather than relegating it to the realm of the utterly subjective.
Which is not too far from my own views, but then I still would have to resist the trend (which I can't imagine him not supporting) to consider religion to be mandated by (supposed) logical proof, as it seems his direction must inevitably be if he is opposed to the 'subjective' diversity of beliefs and practices. Because A, it might or might not be actually "true" as allegedly proven (choose your premises carefully), and B, even if something is true, if it harms no one to believe/practise otherwise or in a different version at the surface, then why press the issue? It is far more important for people to interact decently as fellow humans than to agree on the same exact creed, and I think a good deal more attention in the philosophical vein, since it's been brought up, ought to be re-addressed to the subject of ethics and responsible social interaction with others as equal beings.
--Aurey
Whose side am I on?--what a question to ask....
-
It might possibly seem from some of my posts recently that I'm standing up for the Pope as the "good guy" against a wave of hypersensitive Muslim fanatics. This is not precisely true, seeing as I consider him personally to be a scant few degrees more rational in civilized behaviour and intellectual detachment from his topic -- and those are only surface characteristics, easily assumed by the most rabid fundamentalist of any stripe with sufficient knowledge and practice.
The one stance within his speech that badly needs due recognition is that religion ought to have a sense of reason, instead of assuming itself (pardon my language) sacrosanct and the rational disciplines accounting it all subjective delusion and neurological imprinting. Unfortunately, his idea of religion and social doctrine is hardly rational nor humane enough for me, so I consider him a poor choice to be making that point.
But then you have the religious insult factor, and it becomes apparent that some people are completely unwilling to be rational with their religion and allow that it might have factors that show it in a bad light -- instead, they merely make those flaws the more apparent by jumping to conclusions and violence. Pope Benedict may have studied more about Islam than any pontiff before him, but it's a fair bet that over well 90% of the Muslims who are/have been railing against him are completely uninformed about his position relative to both the U.S. and to the (split) history of Christianity overall, which I've been trying to give some insight on lately. A well-educated man who addresses a gathering of peers and students is probably not expecting to be taken literally-and-skewedly by those outside who have no basis in that academic discipline, but due to the constant technological publicity of our world it is possible to become outraged over secondhand remarks far more quickly than one would have had time to absorb the entire presentation in person.
Which is why I tend to ignore most of the hype and outrage around socio-political gaffes until I can take them in context with the event and preferably get to the original source material (like I said, I found the link to that actual speech and posted it here). To react to mere words without as much perspective as possible on where they came from is ill-educated and at the mercy of whatever opinion-framer wants to set their agenda by the hypersensitivity of others......but what we see clearly here is that a majority of the people on this earth are far more keen on burning the finger in effigy than seeing where it was pointing at the moment of taken affront.
That is, at the idea that it is inherently irrational to enforce faith by violence, and thus against the nature of divinity itself. A better and wiser man would have said far more than that; a more practical and prudent man would have said far less. Personally, I'm inclined to see some truth in the (trying to remember name) supposed prophecy regarding the scheduled Popes before the Antichrist shows up....remember, this was going around a lot online before the papal election? 'Benedict' was one of the implied names -- it means "speaking well/goodness", like a 'benediction' is a blessing -- but going together with an ultimately ineffectual stance against the tide of negative events. In this case, the extreme intellectual sophistication of Cardinal Ratzinger, and his eloquence in favour of traditionalist doctrine and the purity of the Roman Catholic Church, are no defense nor immunity from being a doormat/assistant (however you wanna look at it) to the rising tide of terminal extremism sweeping the globe. Personally, considering his former office (and his known views)....well, let's just say I haven't not been expecting it....:-
Of course, he could just be asking for it, trying to start another Crusade.....um, yeah, who the hell deliberately goes around picking fights with Muslims unless they've got 'em in high-security/no-media confinement? Personally, I don't think that the present Pope is quite so much of an self-motivated martyr for that (otherwise why retain the Swiss Guard and the bulletproof Popemobile?), though I'm fairly sure that he thought he would be helping things in some positive fashion by advocating religious rationality as opposed to religious irrationality. The problem is, that only works when there's a bridge of communication between you and your intended audience. There may have been one between him and the audience in the room, but there was (consequently?) none between him and the millions of Muslims who only got the bit that quoted about Islam being "evil and inhuman".
[Note: Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos was unable to be reached for comment on his own research and perspective regarding Islam and the prior condition of the Arabic culture within which it arose. His statements must therefore be taken as coming from a relatively contemporary and personal experience of the religion's effects on/surrounding the Byzantine Empire of the 15th century.]
For the record--I do not trust the Pope in any degree, nor do I agree with any of his signature/endorsed policies that have come out of the Vatican. I am not now nor have I ever been (in this life at least) a member of the Roman Catholic Church, though I'm related to quite a few of them and went to a Catholic school for first grade. But I do believe that irrational religions are dangerous (as are those that hide behind a pretense of rationality), and that it is far better to have an intelligent and civil dialogue with those of other beliefs than to berate, harass, socially and legally discriminate, tax and stigmatize, torture, brainwash and kill in the name of any god or the absence thereof.
[Admittedly, that can and should be said far more clearly and explicitly than it was....but hell, how much circumspection can you expect from the supreme leader of one of the oldest and most absolutist denominations in the world? Expect chauvinism and condescension from a pope -- that way you won't be disappointed when the status quo remains unchanged or becomes regressively entrenched.]
But anyhow, anyone in these days who has a significant problem with that above concept probably hasn't thought very much about the state of this world -- or else they are willing to destroy it and the rest of humanity for the sake of what they think will be heavenly favour in the world to come.
[Gee, won't they be surprised.....]
It might possibly seem from some of my posts recently that I'm standing up for the Pope as the "good guy" against a wave of hypersensitive Muslim fanatics. This is not precisely true, seeing as I consider him personally to be a scant few degrees more rational in civilized behaviour and intellectual detachment from his topic -- and those are only surface characteristics, easily assumed by the most rabid fundamentalist of any stripe with sufficient knowledge and practice.
The one stance within his speech that badly needs due recognition is that religion ought to have a sense of reason, instead of assuming itself (pardon my language) sacrosanct and the rational disciplines accounting it all subjective delusion and neurological imprinting. Unfortunately, his idea of religion and social doctrine is hardly rational nor humane enough for me, so I consider him a poor choice to be making that point.
But then you have the religious insult factor, and it becomes apparent that some people are completely unwilling to be rational with their religion and allow that it might have factors that show it in a bad light -- instead, they merely make those flaws the more apparent by jumping to conclusions and violence. Pope Benedict may have studied more about Islam than any pontiff before him, but it's a fair bet that over well 90% of the Muslims who are/have been railing against him are completely uninformed about his position relative to both the U.S. and to the (split) history of Christianity overall, which I've been trying to give some insight on lately. A well-educated man who addresses a gathering of peers and students is probably not expecting to be taken literally-and-skewedly by those outside who have no basis in that academic discipline, but due to the constant technological publicity of our world it is possible to become outraged over secondhand remarks far more quickly than one would have had time to absorb the entire presentation in person.
Which is why I tend to ignore most of the hype and outrage around socio-political gaffes until I can take them in context with the event and preferably get to the original source material (like I said, I found the link to that actual speech and posted it here). To react to mere words without as much perspective as possible on where they came from is ill-educated and at the mercy of whatever opinion-framer wants to set their agenda by the hypersensitivity of others......but what we see clearly here is that a majority of the people on this earth are far more keen on burning the finger in effigy than seeing where it was pointing at the moment of taken affront.
That is, at the idea that it is inherently irrational to enforce faith by violence, and thus against the nature of divinity itself. A better and wiser man would have said far more than that; a more practical and prudent man would have said far less. Personally, I'm inclined to see some truth in the (trying to remember name) supposed prophecy regarding the scheduled Popes before the Antichrist shows up....remember, this was going around a lot online before the papal election? 'Benedict' was one of the implied names -- it means "speaking well/goodness", like a 'benediction' is a blessing -- but going together with an ultimately ineffectual stance against the tide of negative events. In this case, the extreme intellectual sophistication of Cardinal Ratzinger, and his eloquence in favour of traditionalist doctrine and the purity of the Roman Catholic Church, are no defense nor immunity from being a doormat/assistant (however you wanna look at it) to the rising tide of terminal extremism sweeping the globe. Personally, considering his former office (and his known views)....well, let's just say I haven't not been expecting it....:-
Of course, he could just be asking for it, trying to start another Crusade.....um, yeah, who the hell deliberately goes around picking fights with Muslims unless they've got 'em in high-security/no-media confinement? Personally, I don't think that the present Pope is quite so much of an self-motivated martyr for that (otherwise why retain the Swiss Guard and the bulletproof Popemobile?), though I'm fairly sure that he thought he would be helping things in some positive fashion by advocating religious rationality as opposed to religious irrationality. The problem is, that only works when there's a bridge of communication between you and your intended audience. There may have been one between him and the audience in the room, but there was (consequently?) none between him and the millions of Muslims who only got the bit that quoted about Islam being "evil and inhuman".
[Note: Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos was unable to be reached for comment on his own research and perspective regarding Islam and the prior condition of the Arabic culture within which it arose. His statements must therefore be taken as coming from a relatively contemporary and personal experience of the religion's effects on/surrounding the Byzantine Empire of the 15th century.]
For the record--I do not trust the Pope in any degree, nor do I agree with any of his signature/endorsed policies that have come out of the Vatican. I am not now nor have I ever been (in this life at least) a member of the Roman Catholic Church, though I'm related to quite a few of them and went to a Catholic school for first grade. But I do believe that irrational religions are dangerous (as are those that hide behind a pretense of rationality), and that it is far better to have an intelligent and civil dialogue with those of other beliefs than to berate, harass, socially and legally discriminate, tax and stigmatize, torture, brainwash and kill in the name of any god or the absence thereof.
[Admittedly, that can and should be said far more clearly and explicitly than it was....but hell, how much circumspection can you expect from the supreme leader of one of the oldest and most absolutist denominations in the world? Expect chauvinism and condescension from a pope -- that way you won't be disappointed when the status quo remains unchanged or becomes regressively entrenched.]
But anyhow, anyone in these days who has a significant problem with that above concept probably hasn't thought very much about the state of this world -- or else they are willing to destroy it and the rest of humanity for the sake of what they think will be heavenly favour in the world to come.
[Gee, won't they be surprised.....]
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Observer's notes from a pseudo-religious debacle....
Some perceived assumptions and between-the-lines observations here:
* Despite the fact that Catholicism is only one denomination of Christianity and is hardly agreed with by all others, the Pope is being assumed as the head of Christianity so far as this debate goes, and most Muslims who do not know (hell, why should they bother?) the history of Christianity assume that he speaks for far more people than he actually does.
* It is also being assumed (hmm, possibly because it's been harped upon so much by evangelical Christian conservatives?) that the United States itself is an inherently Christian nation and that that is the essence of its apparent bias against Islamic nations and entities.
* From points one and two, it is also being assumed that the Pope has connection with the United States (its administration) in terms of influence and agenda, even though that is only the case in terms of social mores and prejudices that are already shared by the vast majority of Muslims and all of "traditional" Islamic cultures.
* The first three points, taken together, imply a Christian crusade being led by the United States against Islam as a whole, with the Pope as the clerical leader/figurehead/spokeperson.
* The repeated demands for a personal apology from the Pope, taking into account his perceived standing as the highest cleric in Christendom, are in actuality a call for symbolic capitulation by one religion to another.
* This wave of demands is being backed by the threat and actuality of anti-Christian violence, regardless of denomination or solidarity with the Pope's supposed anti-Islam bias.
* This reaction, seeing as it has not been tempered with any calls to buck Koranic literality and repudiate the concept of external jihad (i.e., 'fighting the good fight' against others instead of within oneself), only reinforces the original observation of Emperor Manuel Palaeologos that Islam has an irrational bent towards spreading the faith by the sword.
* This is not to say that Christianity has not had a similar bent throughout its official span as a state-recognized/adopted religion, but it is well worth noticing that Eastern Christianity (Greek Orthodoxy and the Byzantine Empire) after the great schism was not part of this historical trend of conquering and enforced conversion, but on the contrary bore the attacks of the Crusaders from the West under the orders/permission of the Pope, who had not exactly made it clear that the inhabitants of Constantinople at that time were of the same essential faith......(oops, his bad)...
* Greek religion/philosophy (whether Pagan or Christian or otherwise) has always had a tendency to debate rather than just enforce its beliefs, and to merely consider those who could not accept them as being intellectually benighted (believe me, I've read enough Orthodox apologetics to have ample proof of this--they far prefer the art of intellectual/psychological argument to that of brute ecclesiastical force, and this is part of a general East-West split as well in terms of ideological extremes).
It's the Western Churches (Catholic and Protestant alike) that have had the most pronounced trends to violence in spreading and enforcing their beliefs upon others. This said, it is a bit deceptive (though intentionally mild?) that Pope Benedict would choose a Byzantine source rather than a Latin one to introduce his point of violence being unjustified in the cause of faith.
* To put words in the mouths of those who feel justified in threatening violence against all who mention the historical (and recent) violence done in the name of Islam, I need only quote Curly Howard: "Hey!--I resemble that remark!!"
* Islam was originated in a reaction against the prior establishment (and cultural status/stability) of Judaism and Christianity. It may have had some 'angelic'/supernatural inspiration, but there is no logical way that it can claim any greater revelation without having addressed in its own scriptures the real and central theological concerns of those religions as they stood at that point in time. If one is to assume possession of an "insider's perspective" on divine matters, then one must also have that same perspective and knowledge of how things are going among believers on earth to warrant a new prophet and a new message. Without sufficient evidence that Mohammed (through Gabriel as cited) had accurate knowledge of the theological premises that Jews and Christians were actually operating under in their pre-existing belief/practice, there is no logical reason why they should accept that his was any better message than that which they already had. One can clearly argue that Jesus understood his own religious upbringing and culture well enough to see where it was failing "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", but the most that one can logically see in Mohammed's own personal motives is a desire for cultural solidarity among his own people, together with an implied oneupsmanship towards the established Jewish and Christian cultures. It is no surprise that they tended to resist his claims; it is no surprise that (given their own 'Abrahamic' tendency towards zealotry and no compromise) there has been perpetual strife wherever people take any of these religions too seriously in intolerance of others and their own beliefs. Put two or three of them together, and one gets either a mutual massacre or a pan-monotheistic theocratical regime against all others. I'm not sure which option strikes me as the lesser of two evils, but at least with the first you actually have a chance of the meek inheriting the earth once the fanatics are done killing each other.
* I believe (as do most sane people, I think) that any religion that thinks it justified to kill others if they don't convert to it or adhere to its social mores is morally wrong. And regarding the difference between a social more and an actual crime, there are only a limited amount of things that one can consider as unequivocal crimes against others, and it's better to stick to the here and now (and already-born) in terms of determining what those offenses are so far as explicit law, rather than expanding/maintaining the list of assumed offences (according to sentiment and scriptural interpretation) without providing a clear and rationally-undeniable argument for each one's universal validity. This applies to all beliefs that want to expand their beliefs/practices into the general sphere of conduct -- they have to prove that whatever they want to forbid is actually and consistently a source of harm to all, regardless of whether it's done willingly or not. I.e., it should require an objective proof and not merely an emotional/scriptural one, if it's to be accepted as an objective and universal standard of restriction.
* If Pope Benedict should be called to task and made to apologize for anything in this particular case, it's for the many many instances in which the Roman Catholic Church has spread and maintained itself through the use of violence, harassment, censure & silencing, destruction, torture and execution. To this date, the Spanish Inquisition itself is officially conceded only as an unfortunate footnote and misunderstanding, rather than one of the most determined and aggressive acts of genocide (actually, I think I'll use the apter term "credocide"...) in history. That is the missing part of his speech, in terms of having any moral standing from which to speak. One cannot honestly attack the faults of another religion without admitting where they have been shared by one's own, and Palaeologos was likely in a far better position to make such a statement as he did than Pope Benedict would have been to declare it in his own right.
* End point, though, he didn't say it himself, he only used it to make the more general point that no religion is justified in using violence to perpetuate itself. Admittedly, he could and should have gone further in terms of applying that dictum, but nowhere did he say anything that could be construed as an essential insult to Islam. Even the original statement was not against Islam in itself so much as the negative methods that it took in establishing itself as a new religion among others, when it could (theoretically) have simply stuck to the essentials of polite religious practice as generally understood, and not started out as such a militant and conversion-intent force that was set on sweeping all others out of the way in this present world and establishing itself as a total all-encompassing theocracy. Even Judaism was originally tribal-territorially limited in its aspirations, and Christianity was assumed to be an underdog of spiritual integrity without temporal ambitions up until the point when it was adopted by Emperor Constantine as his state religion, and then officially mandated as such in AD 380. That's about 350 years from its founding until its being used as a rationale for oppressing/coercing those of other faiths (with a lot of persecution experienced in between), whereas Mohammed wrote the precepts of external jihad into the Medina-era hadiths without much ado or delay. Some might say he was jumping the gun just a tad, if he wanted Islam to be known as (as some have loudly asserted it) a religion of peace and tolerance. Some might say that he just wanted to get as quickly as possible to the position of worldly rule/influence that it had taken both Jews and Christians centuries of endurance and longsuffering to get to in any appreciable degree. Either way, he didn't really go about it very wisely, so far as foreseeing (surely the Archangel could have told him this?) a future in which many religions including his own would be split and diversified and spread over all lands to deal with each other as best they could, and in which any religious injuction to violence against others would be an inevitable liability to the faith should it be taken seriously/literally. It is the tragedy of all religions with large bodies of sacred scriptures and codes, that they tend to cling to the letter (or assumed letter) of those things like children instead of understanding their spirit, and take a long time to evolve with their world and find maturity in the greater social reality that cannot be pinned under one creed or observance.
Or even the utter lack thereof, as some would gladly have it. There's as little justification for destroying religions wholesale as there is for enforcing them absolutely -- the best thing to do for all concerned is just to admit that no one can claim to be justified by their own faith & scriptures in forcing their ways on all. No one, no matter who, because the civil law (in order to be called civil, one might think) should always be wider than the sum scope of the religions within its jurisdiction. Not narrower, not restricting them down to the most conservative end of common practise. If it "threatens" your personal beliefs to not be able to threaten and bully and legislate others into following your own prejudices (or letting you practise them without any liability), then either you've got a weak belief or a rather faulty religion to believe in.
And no doubt I could expand on those last few paragraphs a good deal, but that's for other blogposts and such. In general, though, I think that everyone in the center of this is suffering from a widespread lack of understanding (or responsible explanation) of history, and that most are suffering (whether they'll ever admit it or not) from an unfortunate tendency to jump to vehemently outraged conclusions.
Is the concept of jihad against all "infidels" something that peaceable and civilized Muslims really ought to be defending as part-and-parcel of their religion's honour?--now there's a good question.
Not that anyone's actually going to dare to ask it, of course....
___________________________________________
===========================================
Articles of recent provenance regarding this situation:
Pope stops short of apology to Muslims (Yahoo/AP)
Pope's apology fails to halt Islamic uproar (Daily Telegraph)
God is not to be second-guessed (Daily Telegraph)
Excerpt: [...Pope Benedict did not claim, and does not believe, that Islam is wicked. On the contrary, he has made a closer study of the Koran than any previous pontiff. As he said yesterday, he acknowledges that Muslims worship the same deity as Christians.
His point, rather, was that the spread of religion through coercion is indefensible. Some Muslims share this view, and some do not. But the Pope unquestionably raised an important point, as may be inferred from the reaction to his words: insulted by the suggestion that their religion was violent, thousands of young men took to the streets to threaten violence.
The awkward truth is that all three Abrahamic faiths, interpreted literally, urge intolerance on their followers. The Old Testament is every bit as hard on those who go whoring after other gods as is the Koran.
Here is the Book of Judges: "Ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars" (2:2). And here is the Koran: "Therefore when ye meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks" (47:4). In practice, of course, the followers of the monotheistic faiths do not generally do these things....]
What the pope said (Daily Telegraph) --actual /official statements made thus far
_____________________________________________________
=====================================================
[All death threats/etc. will be read and responded to logically. Which incidentally comes from the Greek word/concept logos, which some understand to be the guiding principle of reason and justice and balance in the universe.......]
* Despite the fact that Catholicism is only one denomination of Christianity and is hardly agreed with by all others, the Pope is being assumed as the head of Christianity so far as this debate goes, and most Muslims who do not know (hell, why should they bother?) the history of Christianity assume that he speaks for far more people than he actually does.
* It is also being assumed (hmm, possibly because it's been harped upon so much by evangelical Christian conservatives?) that the United States itself is an inherently Christian nation and that that is the essence of its apparent bias against Islamic nations and entities.
* From points one and two, it is also being assumed that the Pope has connection with the United States (its administration) in terms of influence and agenda, even though that is only the case in terms of social mores and prejudices that are already shared by the vast majority of Muslims and all of "traditional" Islamic cultures.
* The first three points, taken together, imply a Christian crusade being led by the United States against Islam as a whole, with the Pope as the clerical leader/figurehead/spokeperson.
* The repeated demands for a personal apology from the Pope, taking into account his perceived standing as the highest cleric in Christendom, are in actuality a call for symbolic capitulation by one religion to another.
* This wave of demands is being backed by the threat and actuality of anti-Christian violence, regardless of denomination or solidarity with the Pope's supposed anti-Islam bias.
* This reaction, seeing as it has not been tempered with any calls to buck Koranic literality and repudiate the concept of external jihad (i.e., 'fighting the good fight' against others instead of within oneself), only reinforces the original observation of Emperor Manuel Palaeologos that Islam has an irrational bent towards spreading the faith by the sword.
* This is not to say that Christianity has not had a similar bent throughout its official span as a state-recognized/adopted religion, but it is well worth noticing that Eastern Christianity (Greek Orthodoxy and the Byzantine Empire) after the great schism was not part of this historical trend of conquering and enforced conversion, but on the contrary bore the attacks of the Crusaders from the West under the orders/permission of the Pope, who had not exactly made it clear that the inhabitants of Constantinople at that time were of the same essential faith......(oops, his bad)...
* Greek religion/philosophy (whether Pagan or Christian or otherwise) has always had a tendency to debate rather than just enforce its beliefs, and to merely consider those who could not accept them as being intellectually benighted (believe me, I've read enough Orthodox apologetics to have ample proof of this--they far prefer the art of intellectual/psychological argument to that of brute ecclesiastical force, and this is part of a general East-West split as well in terms of ideological extremes).
It's the Western Churches (Catholic and Protestant alike) that have had the most pronounced trends to violence in spreading and enforcing their beliefs upon others. This said, it is a bit deceptive (though intentionally mild?) that Pope Benedict would choose a Byzantine source rather than a Latin one to introduce his point of violence being unjustified in the cause of faith.
* To put words in the mouths of those who feel justified in threatening violence against all who mention the historical (and recent) violence done in the name of Islam, I need only quote Curly Howard: "Hey!--I resemble that remark!!"
* Islam was originated in a reaction against the prior establishment (and cultural status/stability) of Judaism and Christianity. It may have had some 'angelic'/supernatural inspiration, but there is no logical way that it can claim any greater revelation without having addressed in its own scriptures the real and central theological concerns of those religions as they stood at that point in time. If one is to assume possession of an "insider's perspective" on divine matters, then one must also have that same perspective and knowledge of how things are going among believers on earth to warrant a new prophet and a new message. Without sufficient evidence that Mohammed (through Gabriel as cited) had accurate knowledge of the theological premises that Jews and Christians were actually operating under in their pre-existing belief/practice, there is no logical reason why they should accept that his was any better message than that which they already had. One can clearly argue that Jesus understood his own religious upbringing and culture well enough to see where it was failing "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", but the most that one can logically see in Mohammed's own personal motives is a desire for cultural solidarity among his own people, together with an implied oneupsmanship towards the established Jewish and Christian cultures. It is no surprise that they tended to resist his claims; it is no surprise that (given their own 'Abrahamic' tendency towards zealotry and no compromise) there has been perpetual strife wherever people take any of these religions too seriously in intolerance of others and their own beliefs. Put two or three of them together, and one gets either a mutual massacre or a pan-monotheistic theocratical regime against all others. I'm not sure which option strikes me as the lesser of two evils, but at least with the first you actually have a chance of the meek inheriting the earth once the fanatics are done killing each other.
* I believe (as do most sane people, I think) that any religion that thinks it justified to kill others if they don't convert to it or adhere to its social mores is morally wrong. And regarding the difference between a social more and an actual crime, there are only a limited amount of things that one can consider as unequivocal crimes against others, and it's better to stick to the here and now (and already-born) in terms of determining what those offenses are so far as explicit law, rather than expanding/maintaining the list of assumed offences (according to sentiment and scriptural interpretation) without providing a clear and rationally-undeniable argument for each one's universal validity. This applies to all beliefs that want to expand their beliefs/practices into the general sphere of conduct -- they have to prove that whatever they want to forbid is actually and consistently a source of harm to all, regardless of whether it's done willingly or not. I.e., it should require an objective proof and not merely an emotional/scriptural one, if it's to be accepted as an objective and universal standard of restriction.
* If Pope Benedict should be called to task and made to apologize for anything in this particular case, it's for the many many instances in which the Roman Catholic Church has spread and maintained itself through the use of violence, harassment, censure & silencing, destruction, torture and execution. To this date, the Spanish Inquisition itself is officially conceded only as an unfortunate footnote and misunderstanding, rather than one of the most determined and aggressive acts of genocide (actually, I think I'll use the apter term "credocide"...) in history. That is the missing part of his speech, in terms of having any moral standing from which to speak. One cannot honestly attack the faults of another religion without admitting where they have been shared by one's own, and Palaeologos was likely in a far better position to make such a statement as he did than Pope Benedict would have been to declare it in his own right.
* End point, though, he didn't say it himself, he only used it to make the more general point that no religion is justified in using violence to perpetuate itself. Admittedly, he could and should have gone further in terms of applying that dictum, but nowhere did he say anything that could be construed as an essential insult to Islam. Even the original statement was not against Islam in itself so much as the negative methods that it took in establishing itself as a new religion among others, when it could (theoretically) have simply stuck to the essentials of polite religious practice as generally understood, and not started out as such a militant and conversion-intent force that was set on sweeping all others out of the way in this present world and establishing itself as a total all-encompassing theocracy. Even Judaism was originally tribal-territorially limited in its aspirations, and Christianity was assumed to be an underdog of spiritual integrity without temporal ambitions up until the point when it was adopted by Emperor Constantine as his state religion, and then officially mandated as such in AD 380. That's about 350 years from its founding until its being used as a rationale for oppressing/coercing those of other faiths (with a lot of persecution experienced in between), whereas Mohammed wrote the precepts of external jihad into the Medina-era hadiths without much ado or delay. Some might say he was jumping the gun just a tad, if he wanted Islam to be known as (as some have loudly asserted it) a religion of peace and tolerance. Some might say that he just wanted to get as quickly as possible to the position of worldly rule/influence that it had taken both Jews and Christians centuries of endurance and longsuffering to get to in any appreciable degree. Either way, he didn't really go about it very wisely, so far as foreseeing (surely the Archangel could have told him this?) a future in which many religions including his own would be split and diversified and spread over all lands to deal with each other as best they could, and in which any religious injuction to violence against others would be an inevitable liability to the faith should it be taken seriously/literally. It is the tragedy of all religions with large bodies of sacred scriptures and codes, that they tend to cling to the letter (or assumed letter) of those things like children instead of understanding their spirit, and take a long time to evolve with their world and find maturity in the greater social reality that cannot be pinned under one creed or observance.
Or even the utter lack thereof, as some would gladly have it. There's as little justification for destroying religions wholesale as there is for enforcing them absolutely -- the best thing to do for all concerned is just to admit that no one can claim to be justified by their own faith & scriptures in forcing their ways on all. No one, no matter who, because the civil law (in order to be called civil, one might think) should always be wider than the sum scope of the religions within its jurisdiction. Not narrower, not restricting them down to the most conservative end of common practise. If it "threatens" your personal beliefs to not be able to threaten and bully and legislate others into following your own prejudices (or letting you practise them without any liability), then either you've got a weak belief or a rather faulty religion to believe in.
And no doubt I could expand on those last few paragraphs a good deal, but that's for other blogposts and such. In general, though, I think that everyone in the center of this is suffering from a widespread lack of understanding (or responsible explanation) of history, and that most are suffering (whether they'll ever admit it or not) from an unfortunate tendency to jump to vehemently outraged conclusions.
Is the concept of jihad against all "infidels" something that peaceable and civilized Muslims really ought to be defending as part-and-parcel of their religion's honour?--now there's a good question.
Not that anyone's actually going to dare to ask it, of course....
___________________________________________
===========================================
Articles of recent provenance regarding this situation:
Pope stops short of apology to Muslims (Yahoo/AP)
Pope's apology fails to halt Islamic uproar (Daily Telegraph)
God is not to be second-guessed (Daily Telegraph)
Excerpt: [...Pope Benedict did not claim, and does not believe, that Islam is wicked. On the contrary, he has made a closer study of the Koran than any previous pontiff. As he said yesterday, he acknowledges that Muslims worship the same deity as Christians.
His point, rather, was that the spread of religion through coercion is indefensible. Some Muslims share this view, and some do not. But the Pope unquestionably raised an important point, as may be inferred from the reaction to his words: insulted by the suggestion that their religion was violent, thousands of young men took to the streets to threaten violence.
The awkward truth is that all three Abrahamic faiths, interpreted literally, urge intolerance on their followers. The Old Testament is every bit as hard on those who go whoring after other gods as is the Koran.
Here is the Book of Judges: "Ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars" (2:2). And here is the Koran: "Therefore when ye meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks" (47:4). In practice, of course, the followers of the monotheistic faiths do not generally do these things....]
What the pope said (Daily Telegraph) --actual /official statements made thus far
_____________________________________________________
=====================================================
[All death threats/etc. will be read and responded to logically. Which incidentally comes from the Greek word/concept logos, which some understand to be the guiding principle of reason and justice and balance in the universe.......]
Bad form, old W....very bad form.....
===============================================================
Negotiations on terror legislation snag
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 13, 9:37 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism_22
Negotiations on terror legislation snag
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 13, 9:37 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism_22
===============================================================
Okay....so, is this so hard to understand, or just to prioritize properly? (I know, I know, you can't expect people to have human consciences anymore, not when national security's at stake...)
If you say that you have a right to treat your enemy captives without Geneva Convention regulations as guideline, then what reason do your enemies have to use any restraint whatsoever when they capture any of your guys? These things were established for a reason of mutual self-protection, not just some imagined namby-pambyism of "being nice to the prisoners"....and honestly, unless you've either been through a POW/torture situation yourself or read/seen and felt a damn visceral lot of the subject, you're not entitled to make decisions that may wind up putting your troops in that kind of unbridled jeopardy. Especially when you're dealing with people who behead journalists and and stone homosexuals....oh wait, that's one ideal ya got in common there, isn't it...?
Commander-in-chief, my ass...the man and the minions/handlers about him have no sense of valuing the lives of their fellow Americans, if they think that selectively ignoring treatment standards is going to make anyone inside or fighting for this country any safer....
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Song lyrics: "Spin" (geez, guess what inspired it...)
Here's a little something I had almost completely written by the end of a certain day (exact dates below)--the melody's really great but I haven't yet got an digital audio clip to upload.
Spin
This is the way of the world—the swift reaction of the hive;
This is the way of the world: no foe be left alive…
so the word’s given to us from above.
And you don’t know how—you don’t know how to see...
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll spin it out for you in seeming ways.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll make their move, and play their part for all posterity.
This is the way of the world—this is the way it all must be.
This is the way of the world—so we can sleep at night in ignorance serene,
while the fools run the show above our heads.
They don’t know how—-they don’t know how to see.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll spin it out for you in seeming ways.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll weave their web, and make damn sure they never have to learn.
This is the way of the world: put pride above humanity—-
and try to rule all the world; don’t heed the clamoring of us who see too far,
with disasters envisioned in our heads...
...while you hold the teeth of dragons in your hands;
while our future’s burning in the desert sands...
It must be seen in the end-—it must be learned before we fall,
what every day must defend: that every life is accountable to all—
that this world can’t be run above our heads…
Do I know how?...Do I know how to see?
Give me a tragedy--throw it stark and real before my eyes…
Give me a tragedy, and let it show what lies behind those walls of yesterday.
This is the way of the world—-but we can bend it by our sight.
This is the way of the world—-ours to make wrong or right.
Dare we hope—dare we pray
that truth be found...that truth be found...?
Dare we hope—dare we pray that truth be found.
–words and music by K. Aurencz Zethmayr—(9/11/01—10/11/02)
Spin
This is the way of the world—the swift reaction of the hive;
This is the way of the world: no foe be left alive…
so the word’s given to us from above.
And you don’t know how—you don’t know how to see...
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll spin it out for you in seeming ways.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll make their move, and play their part for all posterity.
This is the way of the world—this is the way it all must be.
This is the way of the world—so we can sleep at night in ignorance serene,
while the fools run the show above our heads.
They don’t know how—-they don’t know how to see.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll spin it out for you in seeming ways.
Give them a tragedy-—they’ll weave their web, and make damn sure they never have to learn.
This is the way of the world: put pride above humanity—-
and try to rule all the world; don’t heed the clamoring of us who see too far,
with disasters envisioned in our heads...
...while you hold the teeth of dragons in your hands;
while our future’s burning in the desert sands...
It must be seen in the end-—it must be learned before we fall,
what every day must defend: that every life is accountable to all—
that this world can’t be run above our heads…
Do I know how?...Do I know how to see?
Give me a tragedy--throw it stark and real before my eyes…
Give me a tragedy, and let it show what lies behind those walls of yesterday.
This is the way of the world—-but we can bend it by our sight.
This is the way of the world—-ours to make wrong or right.
Dare we hope—dare we pray
that truth be found...that truth be found...?
Dare we hope—dare we pray that truth be found.
–words and music by K. Aurencz Zethmayr—(9/11/01—10/11/02)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)